get_food_entries

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true and idempotentHint true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds a concrete behavioral requirement: authentication via 'check_auth_status first'. No contradictions exist, but the description does not elaborate on behaviors like pagination, error handling, or what happens if both parameters are omitted.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences: the first states the purpose and modes, the second adds the authentication prerequisite. No redundant or vague language. Information is front-loaded and efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the absence of an output schema and moderate schema coverage (50%), the description explains the core functionality and parameter interaction but does not describe the return format (e.g., array of entries) or what happens on error. For a simple getter, it is adequate but could be more complete regarding output details.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 50% (date described in schema, food_entry_id not). The description adds semantic value by stating 'date or a specific entry by ID' and implying that date is required if food_entry_id is not specified. This compensates for the schema's lack of a required field constraint and clarifies the mutual condition, though it does not specify behavior if both are provided.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'food diary entries', and specifies two modes: 'for a date or a specific entry by ID'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_food_entry, edit_food_entry, and other getters such as get_food_entries_month.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The only usage guidance is the prerequisite 'Requires profile auth (check_auth_status first)'. There is no mention of when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., get_food_entries_month for month ranges, or get_favorite_foods) nor any exclusion criteria. The guidance is limited to authentication.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.